A Black Man’s Comments On N—-rs Niggers

A friend sent me this article from the current Esquire by John Ridley, “The Manifesto of Ascendancy for the Modern American Nigger.”

Read it if you can, but since I’m not sure the link will work for long here is how it begins:

Let me tell you something about niggers, the oppressed minority within our minority. Always down. Always out. Always complaining that they can’t catch a break. Notoriously poor about doing for themselves. Constantly in need of a leader but unable to follow in any direction that’s navigated by hard work, self-reliance. And though they spliff and drink and procreate their way onto welfare doles and WIC lines, niggers will tell you their state of being is no fault of their own. They are not responsible for their nearly 5 percent incarceration rate and their 9.2 percent unemployment rate. Not responsible for the 11.8 percent rate at which they drop out of high school. For the 69.3 percent of births they create out of wedlock.

Now, let me tell you something about my generation of black Americans. We are the inheritors of “the Deal” forced upon the entrenched white social, political, and legal establishment when my parents’ generation won the struggle for civil rights. The Deal: We (blacks) take what is rightfully ours and you (the afore-described establishment) get citizens who will invest the same energy and dedication into raising families and working hard and being all around good people as was invested in snapping the neck of Jim Crow.

In the forty years since the Deal was brokered, since the Voting Rights Act was signed, there have been successes for blacks. But there are still too many blacks in prison, too many kids aggrandizing the thug life, and way too many African-Americans doing far too little with the opportunities others earned for them.

If we as a race could win the centuries-long war against institutionalized racism, why is it that so many of us cannot secure the advantage after decades of freedom?

That which retards us is the worst of “us,” those who disdain actual ascendancy gained by way of intellectual expansion and physical toil—who instead value the posture of an “urban,” a “street,” a “real” existence, no matter that such a culture threatens to render them extinct.

“Them” being niggers.

I have no qualm about using the word nigger. It is a word. It is in the English lexicon, and no amount of political correctness, no amputation into “the n-word”—as if by the castration of a few letters we should then be able to conceptualize its meaning without feeling its sting—will remove it from reality.

So I say this: It’s time for ascended blacks to wish niggers good luck. Just as whites may be concerned with the good of all citizens but don’t travel their days worrying specifically about the well-being of hill billies from Appalachia, we need to send niggers on their way. We need to start extolling the most virtuous of ourselves. It is time to celebrate the New Black Americans—those who have sealed the Deal, who aren’t beholden to liberal indulgence any more than they are to the disdain of the hard Right. It is time to praise blacks who are merely undeniable in their individuality and exemplary in their levels of achievement.

Say What? (12)

  1. mikem November 25, 2006 at 8:12 pm | | Reply

    That can’t be a “real” black American, as liberal whites (especially) and blacks will soon inform us.

    Hope his picture lends itself well to Photoshop.

  2. Cobra November 26, 2006 at 12:23 pm | | Reply

    John,

    What is the purpose of this post thread?

    –Cobra

  3. Shouting Thomas November 26, 2006 at 12:44 pm | | Reply

    The purpose of the thread, as I understood it, Cobra, was to inform the readers of the existence of the article.

    I read it. Did you?

    The purpose of the article, as I understood it, was to reject the notion that racial solidarity is the duty of all black people, and to reject the cult of thuggery and criminality that destroys so many young black men. In addition, the author of the article suggests that basing one’s existence on an obsession with racial revenge might be a waste of one’s life.

  4. John Rosenberg November 26, 2006 at 2:41 pm | | Reply

    Purpose? Hmm, good question. I think it was like everything else I post: No purpose at all — just something that I found interesting and thought others might as well.

  5. Chetly Zarko November 28, 2006 at 9:38 pm | | Reply

    John,

    Perhaps Cobra is most offended at your editorial choice to highlight the N-word by beginning your title with a redaction which you then strikethrough and substitute with the shocking word. I wondered why you chose that path, and even as I don’t have a problem with it I do see where some might.

  6. John Rosenberg November 29, 2006 at 5:48 pm | | Reply

    Perhaps, but I figured the author, who’s earned the right to use the word if he chooses, used the word on purpose for its shock value, and I was pointing to his article

  7. Cobra November 29, 2006 at 6:13 pm | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>”Perhaps, but I figured the author, who’s earned the right to the use the word if he chooses, used the word on purpose for its shock value, and I was pointing to his article.”

    Chetly Zarko correctly points out that you have editorial control of yor blog, and the titles of the posts you put forward.

    Second, exactly how did John Ridley “earn the right to use the word if he chooses?” How does one “earn” the right to use racial eptithets, in light of the fact that your editorial decision depicts YOURSELF as a “claimant” of those same rights?

    In your above answer to my first question, you state:

    >>>”Purpose? Hmm, good question. I think it was like everything else I post: No purpose at all — just something that I found interesting and thought others might as well.”

    Yet you clearly believe in your later answer to Chetly that the author you link to used the racial epithet for “shock value.”

    Is John Rosenberg’s usage of the word less “shocking” than John Ridley’s, in your opinion?

    –Cobra

  8. vnjagvet November 29, 2006 at 7:17 pm | | Reply

    What makes you, Cobra, think you have any right or responsibility to edit the contents of John’s blog?

    It’s pretty presumptuous if you ask me. But it’s not at all surprising and completely in character for you.

    Apparently you believe you have a certain amount of moral authority which readers should respect. I do not know where it comes from. But I, for one, do not care. I have seen no evidence of moral authority in any of your comments thus far, and I am have been a regular daily reader here for a number of years.

    Lighten up.

  9. John Rosenberg November 29, 2006 at 10:45 pm | | Reply

    Is John Rosenberg’s usage of the word less “shocking” than John Ridley’s, in your opinion?

    Yes, since I am simply quoting him, but I have little sympathy with outrage over the very mention of an epithet that is not used as an epithet. Randall Kennedy, a liberal black law professor at Harvard (and former clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall) has written a whole (useful) book on this subject. Take it up with him.

  10. Cobra November 29, 2006 at 11:49 pm | | Reply

    vnjagvet writes:

    >>>”What makes you, Cobra, think you have any right or responsibility to edit the contents of John’s blog?”

    I’ve made no claims as such, nor have I ever told anybody what they could or could not say, post, write or draw on the internet or the blogosphere.

    I am certainly not engaging in any Newt Gingrich-ish “y’all better watch what you say” type of censorship. I wouldn’t have the power to act on any such inclination, for that matter.

    I ask questions of John based upon what he has posted on his blog for public consumption. People ask questions of me for the various words and cartoons I post.

    I asked legitimate questions of John on this subject. He tried to answer some of them, to his credit, I suppose.

    “Moral Authority?” Me? LOL. Those are your words, vnjagvet, not mine.

    John writes:

    >>>”Yes, since I am simply quoting him, but I have little sympathy with outrage over the very mention of an epithet that is not used as an epithet.”

    How is this word NOT an epithet in either your post thread title, and the voluminous excerpt of the article you post, which uses the term in question an additional six times?

    The author, John Ridley, (whom you STILL haven’t explained how he “earned” the right to use it) certainly wasn’t using it as a term of endearment.

    I would wonder though John, given your explaination that your use of the term CAN’T be “shocking” because you were quoting somebody else… would that theory apply to ANY quoted speech or writing? By ANY individual? In ANY environment or setting?

    –Cobra

  11. John Rosenberg November 30, 2006 at 8:50 am | | Reply

    How is this word NOT an epithet in either your post thread title…

    It’s not an epithet there because I’m not calling anyone a nigger.

    … and the voluminous excerpt of the article you post, which uses the term in question an additional six times?

    Ridley may or not be using the term as an epithet, depending on how you view him and his usage. But even if he is, I think you would agree that his usage is not the same as the white racist usage to which everybody (except white racists) object. With Randall Kennedy, I see no reason to avoid notice of such language, or to try to wave a banner of my own righteousness by refusing even to quote it. Is it really Ridley’s use of the word “nigger” to which you object, or to his argument? Would his argument really be more appealing to you if he had cleansed it of the offending word?

    An anti-semite is no less an anti-semite if he uses “Jewish” instead of “Jew” or “kike.” And yes, if I were quoting an anti-semite I would quote him, not use asterisks. If I were quoting a Jew (if you’ll pardon the expression) who complained that Jews were acting like kikes, I would quote his statement that “Jews are acting like kikes.”

  12. Chetly Zarko November 30, 2006 at 2:30 pm | | Reply

    Cobra, my question and point to John here was not to call attention to or criticize his particular use of the word in this context. His explanation, as well as the self-evident nature of the written material which we can all review by scrolling up, makes it clear that he used the word in an academic, quotation of another person, context. He was not calling someone the word. There is no comparison to the Michael Richards tirade, where the word was intended to and in a context that would logically cause emotional pain (in the heat of the moment, but that’s not an excuse for Richards).

    On the other hand, I pointed this out to John (because the first commentators were clearly dancing with the issue and trying to set some kind of trap) because it was clearly an editorial decision and I understand that even the academic use of the word (by whites) can be objectionable (whether those objections are fair or not is another issue). I have typically chosen the other editorial decision as a result, although I do consider circumstances when the full word would be necessary (for example, here, in the body of the quotation itself, I wouldn’t make any modification, while I would in my own headlining and descriptions). I do not believe my editorial choice is a banner of righteousness – indeed, it may be weakness or over-conciliatory, but likewise, I don’t want to be distracted by this issue and it is a modest concession at best. On the other hand, I would defend even Michael Richards’ First Amendment right (and especially yours, given the huge differences in nature) to engage in offensive speech, including this word, because although that is also a distraction from the real issues of race, defending the First Amendment is a core value unto itself worthy of the distraction.

    My own views on this issue are subject to some possible evolution.

Leave a Reply to Chetly Zarko Click here to cancel reply.